A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 136. The decision on whether to conduct an investigation is not discretionary, but rather is an obligation irrespective of the filing of a complaint.74 Whenever there are reasonable grounds, an investigation must be instigated regardless of the origin of suspicion.75 137. The “promptness” of the investigation is crucial in two aspects. First, it has to be ensured that the victim is protected and no further abuse can be inflicted. Second, unless the torture resulted in permanent traumata, injuries will soon disappear and undermine the evidentiary basis. As soon as there is a suspicion, an investigation shall be initiated immediately or without any delay, within the next hours or days.76 It therefore has to be ensured that all public officials, in particular prison doctors, prison officials and magistrates who have reasons to suspect an act of torture or ill-treatment, report this ex officio to the relevant authorities for proper investigation in accordance with article 12.77 138. The requirement to initiate an investigation ex officio would be a very strong means to combat impunity and prevent torture. Unfortunately, most officials I encountered are apparently not aware that they are under any international human rights obligation to be active on their own initiative, including whenever they come across detainees with suspicious injuries or hear rumours about a colleague abusing detainees. In fact, in some countries, domestic law does not include any ex officio obligation for law enforcement officials.78 139. Instead they follow a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach and turn a blind eye. For example, at Ciudad del Este Prison in Paraguay, I interviewed a detainee who had recently been subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the police, which had left visible marks. He had subsequently been interviewed by the prosecutor, taken before the court and transferred to the prison. However, none of the officials who saw him asked whether he had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In another case, also in Ciudad del Este, I interviewed a detainee with visible signs of torture and ill-treatment at a local police station. In response to my questions about the injuries, the police guards on duty simply informed me that the detainee arrived from another police station with the injuries. However, they had not taken any steps to carry out a medical examination, initiate an investigation or provide medical treatment.79 Similarly, the head of Jordan’s main pre-trial detention facility clearly told me that initiating investigations into traces of torture of new arrivals would not be his responsibility.80 C. Fighting torture – What needs to be done? 1. Combating impunity (a) Aligning the legal framework 140. Impunity for the perpetrators of torture is one of the root causes for its widespread practice worldwide. To fight impunity it is important that States establish a legal framework 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 36 See e.g. CAT/C/SR.145, para.10 and SR.168, para. 40; CAT/C/FRA/CO/3, para. 20. Blanco Abad v. Spain, No. 59/1996, para. 8.2. See above, 3.2. This corresponds also to the meaning of „promptly” in articles 9 and 14 CCPR: cf. Nowak, CCPRCommentary, 210–240, 302–357. Nedyibi v. Austria, No. 8/1991, para 15; M’Barek v. Tunisia, No. 60/1996, para. 11.5–11.7; In Blanco Abad v. Spain, a delay of two weeks was found to constitute a violation of article 12. See Blanco Abad v. Spain, No. 59/1996. Sri Lanka Report, A/HRC/7/3/Add.6, para 94 (b). Sri Lanka Report, A/HRC/7/3/Add.6, para X. A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, para 58. A/HRC/4/33/Add.3, para 57.